Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
end

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

So besides the non VR being a bit older, a little lighter & smaller filter thread (has no bearing on me, I don't use filters), are there any differences? Price for the non VR are way cheaper than the new ones. If you could get the non VR is great shape for $200-230 or the new one for $350ish (seems that is what the ASKING price is on the B&S forum), what would you go for? I am leaning twords the older one... .

Appreciate any help! heading to Yosemite in a week, and only have a Samyang 14mm and a Nikkor 200mm f/4 - so need something to fill the gap

Feb 12, 2013 at 02:42 AM

binary visions
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

I think VR is a very useful tool. For the extra $100, for me, it's worth the extra shots I will get.

Partly because a lens like this is a common walk-around lens that I'll use inside or casually in low light. For family/friends shots, VR is such a convenience.

Feb 12, 2013 at 02:56 AM

sonofjesse2010
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

VR is useful for the price difference.

Feb 12, 2013 at 03:59 AM

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

but if I shoot landscapes and tripod mounted, I think VR is not necessary..? They are the same lens IQ wise, right?

Feb 12, 2013 at 04:15 AM

jhinkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

I have both.

The non-VR and VR have about the same build quality, though my VR seems to have no wobble to the front element when fully extended while my non-VR has a very very small amount of wobble (though it is used and may have worn in just a tad).

The non-VR is noticeably better at the long end sharpness wise at all apertures while the VR is bit sharper and slightly higher contrast at the wide end (wide open - at smaller apertures they are pretty equal). In the middle (50mm) both are about the same and very very good.

The VR is pretty good, though not the best (not like the new 70-200/4 which is amazing).

As far as flare and ghosting I have not noticed any significant difference.

They both have about the same light fall-off wide open and there is some significant vignetting in the far corners at the wide end that can be annoying at times, especially if you have a CPL on them.

Both seem to focus just as fast as each other.

I have not made up my mind as which to keep. Remember I have exactly a sample size of 1 for each lens so sample variation could be at play.

I was expecting much better performance from the VR version with the more sophisticated optical design.

John

Edited on Feb 12, 2013 at 05:40 AM · View previous versions

Feb 12, 2013 at 05:12 AM

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

John, THANKS for the info. There happened to be one listed locally (non VR) that is in mint shape, and I am checking it out Wednesday. They have it listed for $220, but hopefully I can get it for $200. We will see

Feb 12, 2013 at 05:26 AM

jhinkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

Dustin -

I would make sure to test it for decentering before you purchase it. My experience with these types of consumer zooms from Nikon is that a large number of them have centering issues.

That's a good price though . . .

Feb 12, 2013 at 05:45 AM

BryanSwan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

Dustin - you might thumb through here. For as much trash talking as I've seen about the VR version over on dpreview, the consensus seems to be that the new one is a bit sharper. I can't speak to the older version, but the VR version is a fantastically underrated piece of glass in my experience so far. I didn't think I'd ever really need VR, but when I've had lenses that incorporate it, I've always found myself in situations where it's saved a shot (off tripod of course). Worth the extra imo.

*edit* Just realized you're probably looking at the 24-85G rather than the 24-85D, in which case the link to the resolution chart comparison above won't really matter.

Feb 13, 2013 at 05:03 AM

jhinkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

Yes, the 24-85/2.8-4D is a clearly inferior lens to both the G and the G VR versions. I know because I really wanted to get one of these, but I went through three copies and found none of them to be very good.

Feb 13, 2013 at 05:09 AM

myam203
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

I haven't compared the two, but I have the VR version because I think it's really worth having on a lens like this, unless you're going to be using a tripod most of the time.

Feb 13, 2013 at 03:20 PM

ja_joyce
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

I have the non-VR AF-S G version (it was the first AF lens I ever bought, back in 2003) and it is great: small, light and sharp as a tack. For me, it would be handy to have VR, and I may pick up the VR version at some point, but I really like the non-VR.

Feb 15, 2013 at 04:17 PM

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

great info guys. Hopefully I will have this on Sunday for my trip next week.

Feb 15, 2013 at 04:45 PM

hjanssen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Nikon 24-85mm VR vs 24-85mm NON VR

I never missed the VR on my AFS 24-85 G and it it is so sharp that I hardly use my 28-70 2.8, only when I need the 2.8 I use that heavy big one.

Feb 15, 2013 at 05:23 PM

end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell end